ALEXANDER
AS HERAKLES
by Michael E. Marotta
and Ann Zakelj

This presentation is based on four works, primary among them is an article in the July 2002 issue of The Celator titled "Portraits and Representations of Alexander the Great."  I then presented two lectures, one at the American Numismatic Association convention in New York City the following month, and the other at Coinage and Identity in the Ancient World, sponsored by the Nickle Arts Museum of the University of Calgary, in November 2004. Between those two lectures, the Georgia Numismatic Association published an article I wrote on family similarities as evidenced on coins.  My subjects were the British Royal Family and the Macedonians.

Like any science, numismatics experiences paradigm shifts.  I refer you specifically to Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Briefly, Kuhn recognized that at some point, a theory will not merely fail to incorporate some new discovery, but rather that every new discovery will raise the same basic problems with a paradigm or model. 

The classic case is astronomy.  The Copernican model was a paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic theory.  As astronomers of the 1600s made better and better measurements, more and more epicyclical spheres were required to explain the motions. 

In ancient times, Aristarchos of Samos placed the sun at the center of the solar system with the planets going around it.  However when Archimedes tested this theory by attempting to measure parallax, he found no evidence for it.  This was not ignorance or superstition; it was good science.  So, Ptolemy put the Earth at the center and there it remained until Copernicus, followed by Kepler, followed by Newton. 

In ancient times it was accepted that the coins of Alexander carried the image of Alexander. 

To them, it was obvious.  In the middle of the 20^th century, numismatists inserted an element of doubt.  “It is at best conjectural,” said Martin Price. “…there is no certainty about this,” said G. K. Jenkins.  “It is unlikely,” said Otto Mørkholm.  Then, reasoning backward from the assumption that the coins of Alexander do not portray Alexander we now have the popular assertion that there was no tradition of royal portraiture before the death of the young Macedonian king.  Price claims that there existed a religious taboo that made coins the rightful property of the gods.  These are like the epicyclical motions of the planets that were added to the Ptolemaic theory to save the Earth-centered system. 

 The new paradigm is really a restatement of the older model:  the coins of Alexander are indeed portraits, portrayals and representations of Alexander. 

This is the cover of the July 2002 Celator in which our primary work appeared.  Kerry Wetterstrom, the publisher, created this array.  What we see here are first, a three centimeter ivory head, presumably identified as Alexander III from the Royal Tombs at Vergina.

Below it is the Azara Herm, one of two Roman copies in the Louvre. The Azara Herm is the only statue of Alexander the Great that is identified as Alexander, son of Philip.

This coin is in the Hellenistic style issued by Lysimachos and it shows Alexander as the son of Zeus Amon.

Last, is this coin of Alexander as Herakles. This coin per se is actually a late Hellenistic copy of the standard coinage.  From the days of Alexander for 150 years or more thereafter, this classical image of Alexander as Herakles was the most common coinage of the Hellenistic world.

THIS collection of images summarizes our assertion that new discoveries in archaeology allow numismatists to reorder the known data into a new pattern of meaning. 

NAMES AND PORTRAITS ON EARLY COINS

BEFORE ALEXANDER

The first coins, the earliest examples from the foundation of the Artemiseon at Ephesus show an immediate development, most likely taking place within one generation, from crude lumps marked with a simple punch, to types with the heads of animals.  Whether these represent individuals or symbolize cities, the fact is that they stand for somebody.  In fact, the very marking of a lump of electrum in any way, even with a so-called crude punch is a purposeful act of identification.

Coins like this the top left have Lydian lettering on them that has been interpreted to read WALWEL.  These coins have been assigned to Alyattes of Lydia about 600 BC.

 The "recumbant lion" of Miletos is typical of a long series of archaic coins from dozens of Greek towns, about 550-480 BCE, featuring a wide range of animals and plants.

By 480 BC, Athens placed AQE on its coins showing the head of Athena and her Owl.

Numismatists also know this owl of Tissaphernes.

Like Pharnobazus, Perikle, and Mithrapata,

Tissaphernes was a hellenized satrap of Persia.  

You cannot look at this coin and claim that this is not a portrait, but only a symbolic representation of an idealized local governor. 

This coin was issued about 415 BC. 

The coins of the other governors in revolt came out

about one generation before Alexander the Great.

In the early to mid 300s BC, the Persian Empire suffered some disorganization and local governors were granted – or took – more prerogatives. At the same time, local dynasts, such as Perikle and Mithrapa both of Lycia, extended their realms under at least nominal loyalty to the great king of Persia until a general revolt about 367 BC, as successors and pretenders contented for the throne of the empire.

In Caria, Mausollos – who built the Mausoleum as his tomb – had his coins struck at the Greek city of Miletos.  Pixodoros (a younger brother of Mausollos) arranged the marriage of his daughter to Philip III Arrhidaeus, Alexander’s half brother.  In 355 BC, Athenian mercenaries led by Chares helped Artabazus of Phrygia defeat a Persian army, but when finally defeated Artabazus fled to Macedon and became a guest of Alexander's father, Philip II.

Alexander could not help but know that satraps such as Perikle, Mithrapata, and Maussolos put themselves on their coins. The boy was tutored by Aristotle, one of the greatest observational scientists of all time. The boy subjected Persian envoys to intelligent and insightful depositions. If he had never seen the image of a satrap on a coin when he lived at Pella, he must have seen more than a few when he conquered their countries and seized their treasuries.

These are coins of the kings of Macedonia who were the direct ancestors of Alexander the Great by 100 to 150 years.  These coins were struck about 480 and 450 BC.  Like the Phanes coins, these coins announce the aggrandizement of their issuers.  The coin on the left reads Alexandro.  The coin on the right reads Perdik for Perdikkas II, the son of Alexander I.  This Alexander is also known as Alexander Philhellene, the lover of Greeks, who was apparently the first Macedonian king to enter in the Olympic games, in fact, the 75^th Olympic games. It is important to that keep in mind when you consider the Herakles coins of Alexander the Great.

PHILIP AS ZEUS; ALEXANDER AS HERAKLES

The facing head on the right comes from the royal tombs at Vergina. 

Recent excavations at Vergina revealed exquisite ivory heads of Philip II and Alexander III, only 3 cm high. The head of Philip easily matches the images of Zeus found on his coins. Philip had suffered the loss of his right eye. He had a broken nose. The image of Zeus has the same craggy features as Philip himself. Whoever carved this little marvel could have easily been the celator of the Zeus coins. A similar claim can be made for the coins of Alexander. Philip II, was not alone in striking coins with his own image on them

The coin at the left is a standard Macedonian issue with Zeus obverse and a rider crowning a horse on the reverse.  Iconographers call this Zeus because any well-groomed mature male with no other attributes is Zeus by default.  If his beard were not so nice and if he were in a lion’s skin, this would be called Herakles.  If the name of the town this coin was found in had been Poseidonia, then this would be Poseidon.  In fact, this is Philip.  You can call it Zeus.  Philip would not have minded.  And it is not accidental that Zeus was the father of Herakles just as Philip was the father of Alexander. 

Modeling the king for a mythic image did not begin with Philip. 

These coins fit well into the Alexandrine matrix, and yet they do not look quite like Alexander.

 Amyntas II issued this coin.  Amyntas II was most likely the mortal grandfather of Alexander the Great.  (I say that because his mother, Olympias claimed that she had been impregnated by Zeus who visited her in the form of a snake.)  This looks not much like Alexander, but still fits within the broad latitudes of Alexandrine issues.  Perdikkas was the son of Amyntas II. He was the older brother of Philip II and therefore the uncle of Alexander the Great. 

Amyntas III (ruled 390-369 BC) was the grandfather of Alexander the Great. Perdikkas III (ruled 369-359) was the son of Amyntas III and he was the older brother of Philip II and therefore the uncle of Alexander the Great. When you look at the Herakles coins of Amyntas III, Perdikkas III, and Alexander III, you can see a clear family resemblance.

Today, we accept perhaps without question that coins of monarchies portray successions of rulers who follow from parent to child: the Romanovs, the Hapsburgs, the Saxe-Coburgs.

We know that Britain’s Edward VIII was the brother of George VI who was the grandfather of Prince Charles. We can compare their coin portraits to their photographs. Unfortunately, we do not have snapshots of the Macedonian kings. We can only accept or reject the coins as prima facie evidence.

Two Roman copies of this statue are in the Louvre. They are attributed to an original by Lysippos, a late classical artist of the 4th century BCE who was likely one of the approved artists of Alexander. This herm carries the name of Alexander: ALEXANDROS FILIPOU: Alexander the son of Philip.

 

The Vergina Head (left) and coin of Lysimachus, depicting Alexander, struck in the Hellenistic  style created after the death of Alexander.

After Alexander, there was clear shift in Greek royal portrait coinage. Ptolemy put Alexander and then himself on his coins. So did Seleukos. Lysimachos issued a long series of coins depicting Alexander. In terms of artistic style, the coins of Lysimachos are not "realistic," but rather "representational.” This is the canon of Lysippos. The statue of Alexander called Doryphoros ("Alexander with a Lance") and the Lysimachos silver issues shared this Hellenistic style. Seen from modern times, the aesthetic correspondence of the coins and the statues creates a false standard for judging the earlier Herakles coins of Alexander. Against the Hellenistic representation, the classical style is wrongly condemned as being not really Alexander.

The coins of Lysimachos and the statues of Lysippos communicated by extreme the features of Alexander that were easiest to parody: the crane of the neck, the angle of the shoulder, the leonine hair, the hyperthyroid protruding eyes.

When the sculptor Lysippos, the painter Apelles, and the gem cutter Pyrgoteles created their portraits of Alexander, they were not blazing a trail, but following a path. As a result of their work, people all across the empire saw paintings, statues, and coins of Alexander. When the temple of Artemis at Ephesos was rebuilt into one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, it included a four-color painting of Alexander by Apelles. J. J. Pollitt writes in Art in the Hellenistic Age: "The evidence of monuments which preserve what seem to be nearly contemporary and unheroic images of Alexander, such as the Alexander sarcophagus and the Alexander Mosaic, suggest that in his own lifetime Alexander was represented in a naturalistic fashion with relatively short hair.” Everyone knew what the king looked like.

MACEDON: KINGDOM AMONG DEMOCRACIES

The ancestors of Alexander the Great worked hard to establish a mythology that validated them in the eyes of the Greeks. Eventually, they succeeded.

 Although the Olympic games were founded in 776 BC, it was not until 480 BC that Alexander I, king of Macedon was allowed to complete. The Macedonian ruling family was heavily Illyrian in its ethnicity.

One of the arguments against the Herakles coins being portraits of Alexander is that it would have been anathema for a Greek to put his own image on a coin – even if it were allowed to a Carian satrap. (After all, the Carians marry their sisters.) But was Alexander really Greek?

A view of Alexander the Great would be incomplete without acknowledging the issue of Macedonian Greekness, a topic of intense debate since ancient times.

Politically, the two peoples differed significantly, and it is in this regard that Alexander is more Macedonian than Greek. The kings of Macedon,  preoccupied with tribal warfare, never embraced the democracy of the Greeks who considered kingship a barbarian form of government. The Greek notion of a social identity, their emphasis on the polis, was in direct contrast to the Macedonian ideal, which stressed the individual and his accomplishments.

Testing the Theory

There are three paths to testing our theory.    First, consider images of Herakles from before Alexander and outside Macedon. Second, consider images of Herakles after Alexander.  Can they be differentiated from Alexander?  Third consider other coins of Alexander in which he is portrayed as other than Herakles.  Does the image look like Alexander?

Lucania, Herakleia AR Diobol. Circa 432-380 BC. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion's skin headdress / HE (retrograde) above lion crouching right. BMC 3, SNG Cop 1100. (Wildwinds database)

 LUCANIA, The Lucani. ca 210-203 BC. Æ Reduced Sextans. Head of Herakles right, in lion's skin headdress; spearhead below / LUKIANON right, Athena advancing right, holding shield & spear; wolf's head right. Scheu 7; SNG ANS 2; BMC 5; SNG Cop 1097. (From the Wildwinds database.)

KINGS of MACEDON. Philip II. 359-336 BC. Stater (Gold, 8.64 g 12), Kolophon, 323-317. Laureate head of Apollo to right, with the features of Alexander III Rev. ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ Charioteer driving galloping biga to right, holding the reins in his left hand and a goad with his right; below right, tripod. Le Rider pl. 93, 26. SNG Alpha Bank 260. Thompson Philip p. 58 and pl. VI, 12. A splendid coin with a fine portrait; one of the finest known examples of this type. Good extremely fine.

This issue, struck in Kolophon and in Magnesia from a single obverse die that was used by both mints, was produced during the short reign of Philip III Arrhidaios and is one of the most exciting of all the posthumous staters in the name of Philip II. The head on this coin is clearly that of a real person, not just an ideal version of Apollo. The features are so distinctive, in fact, that it has been identified as a true portrait of Alexander III. Why this should have happened when and where it did is unknown, but the coin’s beauty and importance has made it one of the most desirable of all the gold staters of Philip. 

Nomos AG, Auction 1, May 6, 2009. (www.coinarchives.com)

Heraklesqua  Alexander was the son of Zeusqua  Philip.

 It is true that Alexander did create the Athena/Nike gold coins and issued a brief run of coins showing Apollo. It is also true that previous kings of Macedon struck coins with the image of Herakles, and placed other deities on their issues. Alexander could have chosen other pan-Hellenic images, such as his ancestor, Achilles, for his imperial coinage.

Alexander chose Herakles; and Herakles was the son of Zeus; and Zeus was Philip's image.

We deny the reality of the gods of Olympos. We deny that they visit us. We deny that they intermarry with us. In Alexander's time, the gods were an absolute certainty and if we forget that -- and ignore what it means -- we deprive ourselves of the ability to understand Alexander and his time.